User talk:Joe of Ham

Jim Yong Kim
Your edits to are becoming disruptive. Please quite reverting reasonable edits by other editors. If you continue Edit warring you will be blocked under the WP:3RR policy. User:Fred Bauder Talk 12:14, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Another tack on Jim Yong Kim
I've been a "part time" editor on Kim and just since the nomination announcement; though I'd seen him and been quite impressed by him on Charlie Rose (for what that's worth; not everything I know) last year+-.

I've seen the "edit war" tangles. And I've seen now you (mis+-)cited by pseudonym in the Politico comments section. It's a fascinating set of comments, there; almost enough to make me want to join Facebook in order to join in. But back here: It looks to me like your initial contribution came here on March 11; not the 14th as the commenter at Pol. said.

The question I'm really on at this point: Where'd the $30,000 coffee pot story come from? I expect you're aware but if not I'll notify you that that one fact -- which was not in the 2011 Security Report; which Report was the governing footnote for the fact; all as best I've been able to ascertain -- gained mention in the Pol. article itself (same link as above). And a factual error -- even just a not-footnoted fact -- hurts Wiki, I think I'd say, as much as the scrubbed-or-not-scrubbed issue. (Again if you've missed it, the removal of (basically) your "controversies" section -- at a point and by an editor I have yet to identify -- was the "scrubbing" event. The section was mine, too, to a small degree: "citework" I call it, fleshing out the footnotes in this instance like here and around there after 17:00 on 23 March; also, a little later (and a couple hours after the Pol. article was posted; though I've only focused on the Pol. this evening, a day-and-a-half later), I added the "unbalanced" template to what I'm calling the "controversies" section. Which template is now removed and which I and others have now discussed at Talk:Jim Yong Kim; a page where your work's been discussed some, too.)

If you can answer the coffee-pot question (here is fine; I'll check back) I'd appreciate it.

All I'm discussing here is on the record either on Wiki or at Pol.. I'm hoping you will join the effort to clarify what happened so mistakes can be corrected and issues clarified within, and with the world outside, Wiki.

If you want to get rid of the "red" of your user name, just click on your name or "User page" above and create a minimal-to-start, whatever you wish, user page. Then you'd go to the usual blue (though a few like the red ongoing) in Revision history for instance.

On those notes, thanks for your contributions (with reservation on the substance of the contrib's; but they seem in good faith and that's what I appreciate). Cheers. Swliv (talk) 02:45, 25 March 2012 (UTC)